CAT/C/64/D/727/2016 extradite the complainant. By letter of 3 March 2016, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of Dresden instructed that the complainant should be released immediately and that the warrant for extradition custody be lifted. On the same day, the Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Dresden set aside the warrant for extradition custody in order to comply with the principle of proportionality. The Government of Belarus was notified of those developments by a note verbale of 11 March 2016. The State party adds that the complainant’s current whereabouts are unknown. 6.7 The State party submits that the complaint is ill-founded and reiterates that the complainant’s extradition was permissible based on the comprehensive assurances given by Belarus. Reference is made to Committee’s jurisprudence in which the person in question must personally be at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture upon return. 14 The State party notes that the existence of a pattern of gross or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute adequate reason for determining with sufficient certainty that a particular complainant would, in fact, be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to a particular country. 15 The State party also notes that the grounds must go beyond a mere abstract danger that the person concerned is exposed to a particular risk and that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant. 16 6.8 The State party reiterates that, while the complainant referred to numerous reports on the general situation of human rights in Belarus, including reports on torture and illtreatment, he failed, however, to submit any facts, both in the domestic proceedings and in the complaint proceedings, indicating that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture. Referring to the complainant’s first asylum request, the State party notes that the Czech authorities did not find the claims credible, particularly in relation to his statements that: he was politically active in supporting the opposition; or that he was detained and his vehicle was seized, whereas his house was searched. The State party is convinced that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claim that the Belarusian authorities have fabricated the criminal case against him due to his political activism. 6.9 The State party referred to the criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights and noted that the assurances given in the complainant’s case were adequate as regards their substance and that they were sufficiently specific. The State party recalls that, according to these assurances, the complainant, if extradited, will be placed in a detention facility that is compliant with the requirements of the European Convention and it will be possible at any time for representatives of the German Embassy to visit him. 6.10 The State party indicated that, in the course of the many years of collaboration on extradition matters with Belarus, the latter has fully abided by its commitments on assurances, and there were no cases in which Belarus only partially abided. Therefore, in the State party’s assessment, the current assurance agreement with Belarus is a reliable mechanism, which also allows regular monitoring by the German Embassy in Belarus. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 27 March 2017, the complainant submitted that the State party had incorrectly assessed his residency status in the Czech Republic. He explains that he was granted international protection in the form of subsidiary protection there, which should not be considered as a temporary suspension of deportation. By granting this status, the Czech authorities established that there was a risk for the complainant of serious harm upon return, consisting of risks described in sections 14 (a) and (b) of the Czech Asylum Act, consistent with the respective European Union Council directive, namely the risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country of origin. 17 The complainant further notes that a tolerance visa or temporary suspension of deportation is a different type of status, which is not granted as an affirmative decision in an international protection 14 15 16 17 See, for example, Abichou v. Germany (CAT/C/50/D/430/2010), paras. 11.2 and 11.3. See, for example, X v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/55/D/554/2013), para. 12.3. See, for example, X v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/470/2011) paras. 7.2 and 7.3. Reference is made to Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, chap. V, art. 15. 5